MacKenzie's response (ABT, 71[5], 264-266) to my letter
misrepresents what I said. I did not query the validity of inquiry
learning at the university level because of a paucity of evidence for
it. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I did not say that doing research on a topic cannot constitute open
inquiry. Scientists who examine evidence through written documents may
very well be doing inquiry (at some level), provided they are analyzing
empirical data themselves.

I did not provide examples of questions inappropriate for the
university level. Rather, I gave those examples of the only case of open
inquiry at the undergraduate level I have been able to find to show that
they were being used to practice data analysis rather than to draw
conclusions that constituted a part of the course content, which I think
is the usual connotation when it is claimed that an inquiry approach is
being adopted in a course.

I did not ask for data showing that inquiry works. Rather, I asked
for evidence that open inquiry works at particularly higher levels of
education. Indeed, I'm a passionate user and advocate of inquiry
learning, being very aware of the positive impact that inquiry learning
approaches can have in both the cognitive and affective domains.

Looking at the other two contributions made in the response, one
appears to further suggest a lack of understanding of the distinctions I
am trying to advance and the other appears to be just plain wrong.
First, answering the question of whether or not stress causes grey hair
may or may not be an inquiry activity as I have suggested it be defined
(i.e., students answering a scientific question by analysing raw,
empirical data themselves). I'd suggest that having students
"research" this question by retrieving and synthesizing the
conclusions of others does not constitute inquiry in the spirit of the
inquiry model for learning/teaching.

Second, the claim is made that open (Level 4) inquiry is the
hallmark of graduate-level education. I disagree. My own experiences,
together with the information that I have received from others, suggests
that research at the masters and doctoral levels, for example, in
science proper is very, very rarely a Level 4 experience but rather more
typically Level 2 (perhaps with a hint of Level 3 at times). Either I am
wrong, or the response does not reflect the standard definition of open
inquiry found in the literature.

In short, the response fails to address the considerations I am
trying to share and, as a result, does not further the discussion. In
fact, it appears ironic that the confusing nature of the response
provides evidence for the need for the very kind of clarifications that
were the focus of my original letter.